Satyaban Talukdar vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4780 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Satyaban Talukdar vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 29 November, 2023

Author: Kalyan Rai Surana

Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana

                                                                  Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010224782023




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Review.Pet./118/2023

            SATYABAN TALUKDAR
            S/O LATE HEM CHANDRA TALUKDAR,
            PERMANENT RESIDENT OF PURAN BARKA SATRA, PO KHUDRA, DEMOW,
            UNDER RANGIA POLICE STATION, DIST KAMRUP, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
            REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY,GOVT. OF
            ASSAM, REVENUE (DISASTER MANAGEMENT) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
            GUWAHATI 06

            2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
             FINANCE DEPARTMENT
             DISPUR
             GUWAHATI 6

            3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
             KAMRUP
            AMINGAON
             GUWAHATI 78103

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR P KATAKI

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




             Linked Case : WP(C)/1964/2022
                                                                     Page No.# 2/4

          SATYABAN TALUKDAR
          S/O- LATE HEM CHANDRA TALUKDAR
          R/O- PURAN BARKA SATRA
          P.O- KHUDRA DEMOW

          P.S- RANGIA
           DIST- KAMRUP


          VERSUS

          THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
          REP
          . BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
           GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
           REVENUE (DISASTER MANAGEMENT) DEPARTMENT
           DISPUR
           GUWAHATI-781006

          2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

          GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
          FINANCE DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-781006
          3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          KAMRUP
          AMINGAON
          GUWAHATI
          ASSAM
          ------------
          Advocate for : MR P KATAKI
          Advocate for : SC
          FINANCE appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS



                               BEFORE
               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

                                   ORDER

Date : 29.11.2023 Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.1, Mr. A. Chaliha, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.2, and Mr. K.K. Page No.# 3/4

Bhattacharyya, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent no.3.

2. This application for review is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2023, passed by this Court in WP(C) 1964/2022.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court had accepted the stand of the learned Govt. Advocate that there was no vacancy in the promotional post. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.3 to project that the respondent no.3 had never taken a stand that there was no vacancy for the post of Senior Assistant. Hence, it is submitted that the finding of this Court that the entire exercise would be an exercise in futility was passed on incorrect premises. Accordingly, it is submitted that this is a fit and proper case for exercising review jurisdiction and to revisit the order impugned in this review petition.

4. The learned departmental counsel as well as the learned Govt. Advocate have made their submissions.

5. The Court finds that reasons are assigned in the order impugned in this review petition for rejecting the prayer made in the writ petition. Insofar as the stand of the respondent authorities that there was no vacancy available is also found to be contained in paragraph-6 of the order dated 11.12.2018 passed by this Court in WP(C) 194/2017.

6. Under such circumstances, if any error has crept in the order, it cannot be said that there was an inadvertent error and therefore, the nature of error which is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner can only be rectified by taking appropriate steps against the judgment and order impugned in this review petition.

Page No.# 4/4

7. Therefore, the petitioner shall take an appropriate call in connection with the order impugned in this review petition as may be so advised. As the Court has arrived at a finding that it was not an inadvertent typographical error which has crept in the order impugned, this review petition stands closed with liberty to the petitioner to take such appropriate measures as he may be so advised.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant